I suggest that we discuss with this new clause, the new paragraph No. 12 – “The owner`s rights to the withdrawal of goods,” which I would ask, if I wish, for a separate department – new clause No. 13 – “Amendment of section 4 of the main law.” – and Amendments 41, 110, 111 and 122. In a rental agreement, the buyer has the option to return the goods at any time before the purchase. In instalment sales, there is no such return option. After the delivery of the goods, the property and the property are transferred. Second, clauses have been taken into account, as have those we are discussing today, which have formulated the principle more generally. In any event, they left the decision to the courts. We believe that this approach escapes the difficulty of giving details and saying what needs to be done in practice to resolve them, but there is no effective protection for the tenant, because he has no remedy that he can do without carrying the enormous risks of legal action against powerful interests. In this case, the tenant had obtained financing for a car from GE Money in 2008 when rent was purchased, but had to terminate the contract in 2009 when she experienced financial difficulties.
In collaboration with her local money and budget consulting service, she wrote to GE Money about her intention to terminate the contract and tried to return the car. However, the company refused to refund the car until half of the rental price had been paid, arguing that section 63 meant that compensation must be paid in advance as a precondition for termination of the contract. The Tenant then filed a complaint with the Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO) who agreed with GE Money that the deficit had to be paid before the car could be returned. I remain of the view that what is proposed here would produce results that Parliament would not want. Under the proposed clause, it is possible for the financial company to terminate the contract in the initial phase because of the tenant`s most trivial breach, to withdraw the goods and require the financial company to make payments up to half the rental price. 31. In the event of a dispute between the parties at the end or in relation to the agreement, whether in the nature of the interpretation or in the sense of a clause in this agreement or in respect of a claim of one against the other, or if this is done in another way, the arbitration procedure of a common arbitrator is referred to the arbitration of a common arbitrator. Otherwise, two arbitrators of one per party and arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940. I think there is another, and perhaps more important, case of Anglo Auto Finance Company Limited v. James. There was a contract in the contract that went beyond the scope of the 1938 Act, a clause which provided that the actual amount of damages owed by the lessor in the event of termination as a result of a tenant`s breach was payable.
The landlord in that case terminated the contract because the tenant was in default with his payments in the sum of 17 11s. 6d. and filed a complaint about an amount calculated on the actual measure of the injury clause. The Tribunal found that this clause constituted a sanction clause that did not contain a real estimate of the injury and was therefore not applicable. As a result, the owner recovered only arrears, as well as a small amount of the withdrawal fee. Financial institutions generally reserve the right to terminate the contract if the tenant violates its terms. I have today looked at the terms of the agreement of some of our most prestigious financial institutions, and that is clearly the case. They naturally have the right to make this provision and apply it where they see fit, but some offences are more serious than others, and some are trivial. An injury by the tenant may be due to monitoring or accident. Such an offence should certainly not allow the financial home to intervene and claim damages, as if the tenant was unable or unwilling to honour the contract.